Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION JOSEPH SOLIS, § Plaintiff, : VS. ~§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-372 □ FELIX C ANAZOR, et al., . Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Tulie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 37). The M&R recommends that Plaintiffs lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Jd. at 3. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.! See

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam): Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E.

! Plaintiffs mail was returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 39; D.E. 40). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. 1/2

37). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs lawsuit under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED.

D . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas August 18, 2021

2/2